Re: Pioneer Anomoly

On Tue, 21 Jun 2005 21:52:39 +0100, "George Dishman"
<george@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

>
>"John C. Polasek" <jpolasek@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
>news:8ikeb1trso7rv6j1u34fe4rptfe7vpft23@xxxxxxxxxx
>> On Mon, 20 Jun 2005 21:32:43 +0100, "George Dishman"
>> <george@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"John C. Polasek" <jpolasek@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
>>>news:l4gbb19gq4jg7rvp9uk4bi458jrfsb0vua@xxxxxxxxxx
>>>> On Sun, 19 Jun 2005 18:54:29 +0100, "George Dishman"
>>>> <george@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>"John C. Polasek" <jpolasek@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
>>>>>news:fhvab11tui0d443qm3p2lbnmqvelqbasae@xxxxxxxxxx
>>>>>> On Sun, 19 Jun 2005 09:10:15 +0100, "George Dishman"
>>>>>> <george@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>"John C. Polasek" <jpolasek@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
>>>>>>>news:8dd8b1dt8rrcade7ph486esrjivbrq29ih@xxxxxxxxxx
>>>>>>>> On Sat, 18 Jun 2005 15:29:28 +0100, "George Dishman"
>>>>>>>> <george@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>>>>>...
>>>>>>>>>> On Sat, 18 Jun 2005 14:08:02 +0100, "George Dishman"
>>>>>>>>>> <george@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>>>>>...
>>>>>>>>>>>OK, I have it now. There are some obvious problems
>>>>>>>>>>>without getting into the detail yet. The first you
>>>>>>>>>>>point out yourself: the effect of a large distant
>>>>>>>>>>>mass would apply to all the bodies in the solar
>>>>>>>>>>>system hence we would not detect anything. In fact
>>>>>>>>>>>this is currently happening both because the Milky
>>>>>>>>>>>Way galaxy is bound in the Local Group. You might
>>>>>>>>>>>also find it interesting to look up the "Great
>>>>>>>>>>>Attractor":
>>>>>> Any point in our universe of particles is located at x y z cT. There
>>>>>> is image in Dual Space of antiparticles located at x y z 0. (Espace
>>>>>> is the dual to our vaccum). The range I used for the Newton
>>>>>> acceleration is R = cT. It is not a distance xyz w/re to the Sun e.g.
>>>>>
>>>>>That comment seems entirely unrelated to what
>>>>>you quote above.
>>>> Some perspective. Forget the xyzicT of Einstein.
>>
>> I think we can start here. If you think I've got some jackleg way of
>> doing relativity you have it all wrong. I am declaring relativity
>> bankrupt.
>
>Understood, but while your description of
>relativity is closer than many in this group,
>it still has a significant flaws hence your
>opinion is ill founded.
>
>> The Schw. metric and time dilation are kluges to make the
>> thing go. The equations of space should have nothing to do with xyz at
>> all, just the velocities.
>
>Velocities are merely the derivatives of the
>spatial coordinates so we can use either
>equivalently.

Not to be picky, velocities have nothing to do with coordinates. It is
only when a mathematical analytic function exists for x(t), then we
can take a derivative.

>> I mis-spoke when I said all relativity is in Fig. 1.
>
>OK, that is part of the confusion, I thought
>you were saying "Fig. 1a is relativity while
>Fig. 1c is my alternative". None of the
>diagrams represents relativity correctly.

No, as I say, relativity has no diagrams. What you see is Dual Space
diagrams built on the fact of our universe traveling at c on a 4th
dimension. There is no attempt to model the Lorentz etc.
>In
>fact I think your diagrams don't work at all
>since velocity is the time derivative of
>the spatial coordinates but I'll give that
>some more thought, it's sufficiently out of
>the ordinary for me to have to ponder it a
>little :-)
>
>> It might sound
>> like it's my way of doing relaitivy. I mean my method delivers
>> relativity's results entirely but by a method derived independently of
>> relativity.
>>
>> In Fig. 1 all the 2nd order defects separating relativity from Newton
>> are contained in the 4th side of the figure. That should be plain from
>> the 4 SR and GTR corrections in Fig. 2 and the table.The SR velocity
>> is relative velocity, and for GTR the velocity is escape velocity, so
>> both modus' are explained by a single figure.
>
>No, you are drawing velocity perpendicular
>to a unit time vector (the "arrow of time")
> but in both Newton and relativity a speed
>of zero is a vector parallel to that. Your
>diagram is a cross between velocity space
>with an extra time axis which is why I need
>to try to translate it back to the usual
>format.
No no no. You are trying to make me draw a graph with x the time axis
and velocities as slants. The horizontal vector is our speed c through
time and cx our speed as reduced by either relative velocity or
gravity.

>> Relativity's Eq. 6 & 7 are quite obscure and rely on the idea of
>> clock slowing due to time dilation. Time is absolute. c varies.
>
>They become obscure the way you have drawn
>the diagrams, normally they are simple
>perpendicuar lines.

I know of no relativity diagram for Eq. 6 & 7 which are quotients of
the time dilation from rel. velocity and "potential energy".

>> Fig. 1 and 2 are velocity diagrams. Observe that these are
>> 4-dimensional diagrams in that any real velocity can be collapsed into
>> a single vector and the horizontal is our velocity through time, 4th
>> dimension.
>
>Note that velocity is already a derivative
>against that same axis.
No, in that case the ordinate would be of different dimension,
velocity than the abscissa, distance. Fig. 1 and 2 have all legs as
velocities.

I am not drawing a graph. Our U moves to the right at velocity c, and
any 'real' velocity V is at right angles to the 4th dimension.

>>>x, y, z and t are all you can measure. Whatever your
>>>theory, you have to relate them back to those values.
>>>
>>>You are still not saying anything relevant to the
>>>comment above. Your suggestion of a remote black
>>>hole or other large mass cannot explain A_p for
>>>the reason you correctly stated yourself.
>> Quick summary of Ap:
>> The satellite is feeling a faint acceleration 8.4e-10m/ss = Ap from a
>> universe that is the twin of ouruniverse located 11 BLyr from here on
>> the time axis. (Time axis).
>
>In our future or our past?

Take a little look at my #3 paper which I clarified today. It gives
some idea how our universe is receding from its origin in Espace at
the velocity of light. The radii are on the 4d time axis.

>That doesn't make sense, acceleration is the
>derivative of velocity so since you said
>velocity is perpendicular to the time axis,
>the acceleration vector must also be
>perpendicular to the time axis.

Yes, all real velocities and accelerations are normal to the base
axis. You should be able to see that the short axis cx is the Lorentz
shortened version of the hypotenuse, cosine a.
It's the 1-cosine a or vers a that holds the Newtonian defects,
divided by c of course. dc/c is the redshift. dc/c x 86400 sec/day
yields each of the 4 corrections in the GPS.

>> It's from a mass mx of 2x70e21 solar
>> masses in the other space. But mx would have a horizon radius of
>> 22BLY, so we would be in a black hole. Cut mx in two so it is then the
>> antiparticle half or Espace, corresponding to our Uspace half. Now we
>> get Ap/2. Now invoke the new term cdc/dr = mG/r^2 Eq, 1 #2, and
>> recover another contributor to Ap making a total of Ap. That's how P10
>> feels Ap.
>
>Your words make no sense at all, A_p is a
>normal spatial acceleration and has three
>components, since you have only one axis,
>you are trying to equate a scalar to a
>three-vector. All three components of A_p
>are perpendicular to the time axis.

Nah. Any real vector has 3 components, but only in analytic geometry.
In vector analysis it can be a single arrow in Clarendon bold.

>>><snip stuff>
>>>> There's no use trying to encapsulate a whole new theory in a half
>>>> dozen paragraphs.
>>>
>>>Then stop trying to do so and respond to the
>>>objection I raised instead.
>>
>> I will admit that planetary orbits should be likewise affected, but I
>> won't abandon the theory for that reason.
>
>There's no need to abandon your ideas, they
>simply won't explain the Pioneer anomaly.
>The fact that both craft seem to be drawn
>towards the sun but they are on opposite
>sides is significant.
>
>> It is why I suggested that
>> another Pioneer experiment should be sure to determine range also by
>> round trip time, and not rely solely on increase in Doppler frequency
>> over time.
>
>Both craft had such a system and it was used
>to correlate some of the spin effects but that
>function on Pioneer 10 was damage during the
>Jupiter encounter and Pioneer 11 lost contact
>much earlier. I believe it was because they
>were then forced to navigate using only Doppler
>that the original study was undertaken to
>review the performance in that mode.

I am suspecting that the Doppler might exist without spatial
dislocation because I am calculating my Ap along the 11Byr time axis
of separation since T = 0. The numbers match uncannily, but I did back
my way into 10.7 Byr by using Ap = H*c and T = 1/H. And maybe I
haven't gotten every last detail nailed. The first version of my
theory I printed in 2001. I have modified a fair amount since and
anticipate there is more work to be done.

><snip>
>> By now you should see that the x axis is our velocity c or cx as we
>> move through the 4th dimension. V is any velocity you care to name
>> with respect to our frame.
>
>I don't think that way of drawing it works
>but I'll think a little more about it.
>
>>>Relativity also rotates the arrow and keeps it the
>>>same length.
>>
>> Relativity doesn't have an arrow. Its corpus is an xyzt coordinate
>> system whose legs are subject to bending via the Schw. metric. Time is
>> welded onto xyz and nothing moves. That's how it differs from Dual
>> Space.
>
>That's complete nonsense.
>
>>>> Craft's clock on the hypotenuse will read slow in our frame being
>>>> reduced by cosine a or Lorentz.
>>>> Similarly for force F in 1b, which is intended to push the craft,
>>>> has a diminishing effect Feff = F cosine a, just like Lorentz. This
>>>> differs with relativity by avoiding the use of the odious gamma to
>>>> "jack up" m so as to resist the force. This avoids all the
>>>> relativistic mass debates.
>>>
>>>"Relativistic mass" was a poor attempt to shoehorn
>>>relativity into Newtonian equations that causes a
>>>lot of misunderstanding. Mass is really invariant
>>>in relativity.
>>
>> No you have gamma mc2 and no matter how it is argued, relativity has a
>> permanent embarassment that perennially needs exculpation.
>
>gamma mc^2 describes energy, not mass. Mass is
>invariant, an arrow of fixed length.
>
>>>In relativity, we plot the mometum on the
>>>horizontal and energy on the vertical as shown
>>>below. Mass is the hypotenuse and the length is
>>>unchanged by rotation though it looks as though
>>>it changes because the Euclidean geometry of
>>>our monitors.
>>>
>>>>>This is a simple version I did some time ago
>>>>>but it needs more annotation:
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.georgedishman.f2s.com/relativity/momenergy.gif
>>
>> Call me a puritan but I was revulsed at your diagram above. Firstly
>> you are taking the vector sum of momentum p and energy mc2. The units
>> are incompatible.
>
>That's what I meant by a bit more annotation,
>the appropriate factors are not explicit.
>
>> Worse, the hypotenuse is labeled mass and as we know
>> mass is simply a scalar that can transduce acceleration into force,
>> again different units. But then worse, your mass will go to infinity
>> with increase in momentum.
>
>That's where part of your misunderstanding lies.
>On normal Euclidean paper, if I rotate a line
>of constant radius, it draws a circle. Because
>the geometry in SR has signature (+++-),
>rotating a line of constant length produces a
>parabola. The word "mass" indicates the length
>of the line (not a vector) hence is a scalar as
>you say and is of constant length.
>
>What goes to infinity with the momentum is the
>total energy, the sum of the rest energy and
>the kinetic energy.
>
>> Even if you meant pc on the x axis, the
>> diagram is of no tutorial value.
>
>I had hoped you had seen it before but I'll
>try to correct the errors when I get time.
>
>>>>>The mass is an invariant scalar and as usual
>>>>>the rotation in spacetime known as velocity
>>>>>produces the increase we call kinetic energy.
>>>>>
>>>>>As for your figure 4, the one on the left is
>>>>>the relativistic version (if you used the
>>>>>hyperbolic trig as above) with 'v' being the
>>>>>velocity and alpha being the corresponding
>>>>>rapidity. The one on the right is Newtonian
>>>>>where R1 and R2 are the velocities. Alpha in
>>>>>that diagram has no equivalent in Newtonian
>>>>>theory. Did you get the labels the wrong way
>>>>>round?
>>>>
>>>> Not at all. Look again. The effect of a real velocity V is to rotate
>>>> the original time-arrow c as shown in fig. 4a so that after each
>>>> rotation its value remains c.
>>>
>>>That's also true of SR.
>>
>> I have not seen such a diagram in SR. In SR c stretches into gamma c.
>
>No, 'c' is invariant in relativity, the
>apparent increase on the diagram is solely due
>to the limitation of drawing on Euclidean
>paper (screen), like the distortion of the
>widths of countries in a Mercator Projection.
>Again, I had already pointed this out:
>
>>>No, c is a fundamental constant that does not
>>>change in relativity and the axis rotates as
>>>you show in 4a except that it rotates the
>>>other way from what you have shown.

As you can see, c shortens to cx in DS, while SR tries to trim time

>>>Your responses show only some significant
>>>misapprehensions about relativity. You
>>>might try breaking out the textbooks, I have
>>>only given hints of where the errors lie so
>>>you'll need to work out the details yourself.

I think by now you should know that I know enough of relativity to be
able poke at its errors from the standpoint of a whole new theory.
Sloppy phraseology might mislead you into thinking I am tutoring on
relativity, but in fact I want nothing to do with it.

>> To repeat, I have used nothing from relativity except to show how I
>> get the same values.
>> You are probably a pretty quick study but there's no wa;y you will get
>> the whole idea without letting go fo SR/GR and study some new
>> concepts.
>
>My biggest problem is your unconventional
>diagrams, but certainly your ideas about
>relativity are a little off the mark. I hope
>my comments have gone some way to correct
>that.
>
>George
I can't tell you how pleased I am that you consider my schemes and
take the time to discuss them and ask that you file off the sharp
corners here and there for me.

John Polasek
http://www.dualspace.net

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Pioneer Anomoly
    ... > doing relativity you have it all wrong. ... > the 4 SR and GTR corrections in Fig. 2 and the table.The SR velocity ... with an extra time axis which is why I need ... > It's from a mass mx of 2x70e21 solar ...
    (sci.astro)
  • Re: Pioneer Anomoly
    ... be differentiated then the velocity would be ... >>diagrams represents relativity correctly. ... You are trying to make me draw a graph with x the time axis ...
    (sci.astro)
  • Re: Has the speed of light emitted by a fast moving particle been measured ?
    ... | Does that stop you from measuring, for example, your average speed ... Light with the Principle of Relativity. ... THERE is hardly a simpler law in physics than that according ... that the velocity of light in our theory plays the ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: GPS GR Correction Myth.
    ... we shall, however, find in what follows, that the velocity ... It denies an axiom, the Principle of Relativity. ... "Albert Einstein. ... THERE is hardly a simpler law in physics than that according ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: "The Error in Relativistic Physics"
    ... The Science of Physics is based upon the making of measurements. ... another degree of freedom was added to the concept of measurement ... velocity is attributed to Dr. Einstein who showed, ... Special theory of Relativity, ...
    (sci.physics.particle)